This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 5 November 2012 (→ArbCom's decision: wait what?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:44, 5 November 2012 by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) (→ArbCom's decision: wait what?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
"It is the stupidest children who are the most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-up."
This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight". |
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover
Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
 |
Could you take a look
AGK, you blocked User:Logos-Word for sock/meat. Could you look at the discussion on User_talk:Logos-Word (yes, beware of WP:TLDR) - personally, I'm inclined now to unblock, but I wanted to check with you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Replied there (I unblocked the appellant). Regards, AGK 17:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
|
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam
You think someone using 40 proxies is not worth worrying about? We have behavioral evidence in the form of the AfD comments on known socking paid editor's AfDs. If Elen can confirm that all or most of the IPs are from the same subnet, then close it I guess, otherwise if they are scattered all over the world, I think it would be very naive to not assume that someone with access to so many proxies would be able to dodge a checkuser with careful management of their resources. Gigs (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't look at this again tonight because I'm heading offline, so I've reverted my closure of the investigation until I can respond in full to your concerns. AGK 21:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK thanks for taking another look Gigs (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
| ||||
| ||||
Oversight stats
Hey AGK, thanks for posting the monthly stats for CUs. :) I'm always wanting to know how busy i've been in a month :P. I notice though that the suppression statistics are now two months out of date, and i'm wondering if those could be updated. I understand everyone is busy these days, so if I should just post to func-en about this, let me know and i'll do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll update the suppression stats later tonight. I believe those are only one month out of date, but if I'm wrong I'll do an update for September as well as October. Regards, AGK 09:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- You were correct that suppression statistics for the past two months were missing, so I've published the data for both September and October. Thanks, AGK 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, much appreciated. :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- You were correct that suppression statistics for the past two months were missing, so I've published the data for both September and October. Thanks, AGK 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom's decision
I don't understand something about the reason you and the other arbitrators are giving for deciding to not make the interaction bans two-way. Most of the arbitrators who voted to decline Cla68's request for a case said in their comments this doesn't require a case because ArbCom could address it by motion instead. Now in your comment here, you say that you oppose making a decision by motion because the decision shouldn't be made without evidence being presented as can only be done in a case.
I said in my statement on the request page that I would like ArbCom to open a case, and if they do I am ready to present evidence that all five of the one-way interaction bans should be two-way. The reason I can't present more evidence is that ArbCom decided to address the request by motion instead, although now they also are rejecting the motion because they think any decision should require evidence in a case! If ArbCom rejects option A in favor of option B, and then also rejects option B because any decision should require option A, that brings new meaning to the phrase "paralysis by indecision". I sincerely hope ArbCom will have a better reason than this for deciding to take no action, if that is what they decide. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot control my colleagues' enthusiasm for motions over full cases, but perhaps you might find more success in persuading me if you publish at least a sample of evidence that supports making the bans bidirectional. At the moment, I see basically no evidence to support amending the bans, which is why I have opposed both the motion and the opening of a full case. If you were to substantiate your argument, perhaps I might support at least one of the two outcomes. Regards, AGK 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't going to say anything about Mathsci outside of the request itself. But since you're an arbitrator and you're asking me to show you some of my evidence, I assume I am allowed to answer your question.
- I gave some evidence in the last part of my statement that the conflicts between Mathsci and The Devil's Advocate, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher have been more due to Mathsci's actions than those of the other parties. In TDA's case, it exists because Mathsci followed TDA to several discussion that had nothing to do with Mathsci or R&I in order to criticize him. (, , , ) In three of those four cases, Mathsci brought up his R&I related gripes with TDA even though the discussions had nothing to do with that topic, and in the last case it was in an AE thread that had nothing to do with me, TDA or Mathsci at all. When Mathsci brought us up in that thread, TDA and I were not having anything to do with him. The Devil's Advocate's statement gave some examples of the false accusations Mathsci made about him after bringing him up there, such as that The Devil's Advocate had claimed Mathsci was misrepresenting his medical condition, while TDA in fact claimed no such thing. Tijfo98 objected to Mathsci's attempt to hijack that AE thread, and told Mathsci his complaints about me and TDA belonged in a separate AE thread. So Mathsci posted a second AE thread about us later that day, which is what resulted in us being given one-way bans.
- In my statement I also linked to this comment, which explains the cause of the conflict between Mathsci and SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2. In their case it was because Mathsci continued to attack them in arbitration discussions at a time when Trevelyan had stayed away from Misplaced Pages for the past four months, and SightWatcher had avoided Mathsci and R&I articles for the past year. This can be verified looking at the history of their contributions. When Mathsci began attacking them both in this discussion in May, Trevelyan had made no edits since January, and SightWatcher had made none related to Mathsci or R&I since May 2011. SilkTork warned Mathsci about this here, but Mathsci responded by calling SilkTork's warning "trolling". Trolling is the word for what people like Echigo Mole do.
- Looking at the history of amendment requests on this page, it seems things like this have been happening for around two years, and they seem to always go the same way. The pattern is that Mathsci initiates a conflict by going out of his way to provoke another editor who's been avoiding him, and in the resulting conflict it is the other editors who get punished. Sometimes arbitrators have admonished or warned Mathsci about it (he also was admonished for it by an arbitration ruling in May), but his response to SilkTork suggests he considers these warnings invalid. I think if ArbCom does nothing to break this cycle, the same thing will continue to happen again and again. But if ArbCom could turn the five one-way interaction bans into two-way bans (Mine, TDA's, Cla68's, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher's), it would set a helpful precedent that the next time Mathsci provokes an editor who isn't doing anything to him, the interaction ban should cover them both, not just the other person.
- Is that an adequate explanation? I haven't yet finished collecting diffs of some of the earlier editors who experienced this, like Ludwigs2 and Miradre. I can also present some evidence about how this happened in their case if you want me to, but it might have to wait a few days. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- A blizzard of links will not work with experienced editors—I had a look at the first few, and they show nothing wrong. I am familiar with the occasion of the first link as it was on my watchlist and I had a long discussion with a user here who had misguidedly removed Mathsci's perfectly acceptable comment. It is beyond credibility that an account (Zeromus1) created on 19 August 2012 has independently decided that Mathsci requires sanctions, after miraculously encountering Mathsci at Marseille, and after creating Bias in Mental Testing ("The book is based on the fact that the average IQ of African Americans had been consistently found to lie approximately 15 points lower than that of White Americans..."). Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is that an adequate explanation? I haven't yet finished collecting diffs of some of the earlier editors who experienced this, like Ludwigs2 and Miradre. I can also present some evidence about how this happened in their case if you want me to, but it might have to wait a few days. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What do you expect me to do? AGK asked me to publish at least a sample of evidence that supports making the bans bidirectional, and said at the arbitration request page that what's needed was time to examine the situation in detail. If AGK wants to examine the situation in detail, that is not possible without providing lots of links.
- The importance of the threads like the one at WQA is that they show the cause of the conflict between Mathsci and The Devil's Advocate. It exists because Mathsci has several times attacked TDA for R&I related issues in threads that had nothing to do with Mathsci or R&I. A one-way interaction ban is only appropriate if the person being sanctioned is the only one responsible for his conflict with another. But threads like that one show The Devil's Advocate definitely is not the only person, or even the main person, responsible for his conflict with Mathsci.
- ArbCom can examine my own editing history if they like, but remember I'm not a completely inexperienced user. I had a few years of experience editing as an IP until about 2009. When I joined I already was familiar with R&I articles (although not with Mathsci), and as I said here I joined Misplaced Pages with the plan to help Yfever contribute to articles about Arthur Jensen's writings. The Red Pen of Doom previously asked me about this here. Zeromus1 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi AGK. I understand your desire to continue fact-finding by engaging with Zeromus, but I must note that if they continue to violate their topic ban by visiting and discussing it on various arbitrators' talkpages, I will have no choice but to block them until they agree to not violate their interaction ban on any page of Misplaced Pages, in response to any inquiry, from anyone, for any reason. The email channels to Arbom remain open and are sufficient to handling any appeals or clarifications Zeromus may require. Thanks. MBisanz 14:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions permit editors to appeal the sanction to the arbitration committee, and corresponding with an arbiter, when instigated by that arbiter, is reasonably a part of such an appeal. When an person in authority, such as a member of the committee asks an editor to do something, and that editor does so, it is grossly unreasonable to punish the responding editor, even if the response is arguably a violation of a topic ban. Monty845 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Monty here, MBisanz; he's discussing an appeal of the ban, he has to discuss the topic he's banned from in order to make any kind of sense. I'm not seeing how you're helping here. 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions permit editors to appeal the sanction to the arbitration committee, and corresponding with an arbiter, when instigated by that arbiter, is reasonably a part of such an appeal. When an person in authority, such as a member of the committee asks an editor to do something, and that editor does so, it is grossly unreasonable to punish the responding editor, even if the response is arguably a violation of a topic ban. Monty845 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Zeromus1
Hi AGK. The above posting is a fairly extreme violation of Zeromus1's editing restrictions. I have sent a private email to you concerning the account Zeromus1. Their editing history suggests that this is a sockpuppet of a specific site-banned editor. Please see the email for more details. Professor marginalia has already indicated similar problems with this account on the RfAr page. (Just for the record, SightWatcher is under an extended topic ban, not a one-way IBAN; and TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely under AE discertionary sanctions, a block he has not appealed.) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)